Martyr-Like Paladin/Saint

[kenup]

Hmm.... Only paladins I would like to see, are ones that I'm allowed to kill or deny them their "Sainthood". Lawful can be good, at times, but paladins are stupid. That can go for any stupidly aligned character/NPC.

[TrashMan]

 

Not necessarily, a paladin to me is just a knight with a code (and maybe some divine magic) but not necessarily a good one. In Ad&d paladin's get all these abilities that center around them being incredibly good and morally just so it makes sense that they can only be CG but it still kind of sucks. The problem I have with that depiction is that it implies that morality is absolute which, in real life, it's really not.

 

Care to prove that?

Because I say that morality IS absolute and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

 

 

A paladin might be a religious zealot, they might be morally and ethically narrow minded, but does that make them good? We've seen examples in history of people fitting these characteristics slaughtering people by the thousands. The funny thing about narrow mindedness is that it can lead you to genocide. I would like to see for once paladin's that aren't just good for no reason, but instead are insincere in their oath's or religiously devout, but overly sadistic in their persecution of the unholy. Otherwise you just have the cardboard cutout goody-two-shoes paladins that have been done, time and again.

 

Plenty of characters liek that in plenty of games.

 

But mind you, paladins don't really exist in real life, so "historical examples" dont' exist.

 

You CAN have an order dedicated to good and virtue. Of course, bad apples are bound to be found. But you can also have genuinely good people.

 

And frankly, creating a paladin/templar character/order only to villify them is even more cliche and boring. Bashing religion seems popular and sicne paladins/templars are usualyl religious, some people like to bash them.

It sickens me.

Just look what happens when people like that get creative control.

 

Anyone played DA:O? Remeber Gregoir, the Knight-Commander of the Ferelden Circle? That reasonable, mild templar?

In one DA comic, some BS writer turned him int oa hatefull mage-hater who beats up pregnant women.

 

Or Meredith? The poor woman has gone crazy due to an artifact and people hate on her, but few ever bothered to look more closely at her character or tragic history.

How many noticed that she alomst cries, begging for a solution to the mage problem that doesn't involve so strict rules? No one gives her any. No one noticed that she doesn't hate mages at all.

How many noticed that the artifact rendered Betram insane within weeks, and Meredith resisted it for YEARS?

 

 

 

Why is it that a fighter can be Conan, or king arthur or a rogue can be Altair or robin hood but paladins are forced to all be carbon copies of one another?

 

They don't have to be. Are all good people carbon copies of one another? Certanly not.

 

It all depends on how you viwew aligment and how strict you are in following it.

Aligment is a pointer. A point of refference. A tendency. Not a straightjacket.

 

A paladin doesn't have to to a robot that follow every rule to the latter...unless you want him to be.

[Farbautisonn]

Strict adherence to philosophies, religion, codes or creeds have a tendency to breed intolerance and demonisation of anyone "not us".

 

And Moralities/ethics arent absolute. Staying clear of the most inflammable examples lets regard warfare:

 

You and your unit come under an attack from a couple of snipers sitting in a civillian building. The most effective solution is that of calling in an artillery/airstrike on that building flattening it. However the building is filled with civvies. Getting them killed is both immoral and unethical as well as counterproductive to winning hearts and minds. However those two sinpers can take out 5 plus guys with regular intervals which breeds resentment in the unit. What do? Its not clear cut.

 

Also, youre in a third world nation and a girl and her familys buffalo get run over by an APC (Armoured personell carrier). The fater comes running and starts crying obsceneties at the squad. He is desperate and saddened... not for the loss of his daughter. But for the buffalo that ensures that he can feed the other 5 members of his family. The girl he can allways get a new one of. Do you distance yourself from the guy and disregard him, ensuring that he and his sons might turn to the local militia, or do you pay compensation with lots of undestanding for the loss of the animal? What do?

 

Your unit has captured a series of guerillas and you have put them through the polygraph. The local militia leader who is your liason and a guy you depend on both for military, social, cultural and political support is standing next to you and when he figures out how the polygraph works, he exclamates: "Wonderfull, now we know who to torture". Do you take that up with your superiors, distancing yourself from torture and the culture your liason lives in, or do you disregard it and let the prisoners be tortured? What do?

 

Your unit looses 3 guys of your own unit and 2 of your local scouts whilst comming under attack. You find them later up the trail, tortured to death. However one of your kit carson scouts tracks the unit responsible and you soon find and capture the irregulars responsible for the deed. The mood of the unit is one of a lynch mob and you have to make a call. You successfully talk down your own guys but the LT of the militia isnt budging. He wants to put the unit you captured through the same thing that happened to his soldiers. And if he cant be allowed to do so, he will take his unit and leave. What do?

 

You are the Ateam leader of a group of Special Forces guys who have successfully made contact with a very important tribe in the region. You are making progress but something is lacking. The locals want you to grow beards, get tattoos and wear brass rings signifying you as members of the tribe. The ceremony also involves heavy drinking and beating several animals to death in a ritual. Also to your horror they have paraded 4 girls, barely into their teens, before you whom they want you to "marry" to become fully fledged members. Your superiors have told you that you absolutely need this tribes support. Denying the above will ruin any trust you have built, and will likely be percieved as a grave offense to the tribe. What do?

 

 

The above arent hypothetical examples. They are examples that your Special Forces and regular army units face every single day in the third world. They have been facing them since 63. (Read Robin Moores "The green berets" and forget about the movie). Most of us can discern what we in the west would percieve to be the "moral high ground"... however those moralities have costs we might not want or be able to bear. So... does "bending the rules" make you less moral? Your marriage to the teen harem and having sex with them might ensure that hundreds of lives are saved, thousands perhaps, and ensure military success beyond your wildest dreams. But youre married at home and the girls are not even as old as your youngest daughter. You might even have to leave the tribe behind at the drop of a hat. Its not an easy choise and the moralities become significantly more gray when there are costs to them.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Farbautisonn

[SophosTheWise]

I actually like to play now and then a paladin in RPG-s to be something like a Jousting Tournament master, or the char may be like King Arthur.

 

Honestly though, I would prefer to throw out the concept of "classes" alltogether, and get the ability to handpick the skills and strengths of the char on my own (EXAMPLE: you want to have a sneaky noble thief who is also looking great in full plate and has the muscles to wear one properly? sure! but then you won't have enough points to spend on making him also a spellcaster or shapeshifter)

 

You know why? Because this concept sucks in every goddamn way. I know there are some roleplayers who want to do everything at the same time? Why? I have absolutely no idea, but in a roleplaying-way that just doesn't make any sense. Sneaky noble thief - alright I can go with that. But why should he wear a full plate? And why should he be able to shapeshift and cast spells? Is he some kind of ridiculous overcompensation superheroes? I, for one, hate those concepts and whenever players bring that into a Pen & Paper round you just know the game's gonna be bad. People should focus on a simple idea and roleplay the **** out of it.

 

 

 

Not necessarily, a paladin to me is just a knight with a code (and maybe some divine magic) but not necessarily a good one. In Ad&d paladin's get all these abilities that center around them being incredibly good and morally just so it makes sense that they can only be CG but it still kind of sucks. The problem I have with that depiction is that it implies that morality is absolute which, in real life, it's really not.

 

I think he's not talking about one moral conduct but about all the moral codes in a cultural-relativistic way, if I may interpret it that way. Then, of course, morality is never absolute. But for a paladin who is true to ONE god and ONE moral code, there is nothing else that matters to him, so he doesn't really care. Of course there could be some ethical dilemma now and then, but in general those could be easily resolved because, well. D&D is really simplified there having absolute good and evil and no real shades of grey.

Edited November 9, 2012 by SophosTheWise

[Atreides]

I'd like a marchiavellian paladin NPC that knows that sometimes to do the right thing, you've got to be a cunning asshat.

 

Imagine the fun when people go "but paladins can't do that!"

 

Aside: could the Punisher be considered a paladin?

Edited November 9, 2012 by Atreides

[Jorian Drake]

I actually like to play now and then a paladin in RPG-s to be something like a Jousting Tournament master, or the char may be like King Arthur.

 

Honestly though, I would prefer to throw out the concept of "classes" alltogether, and get the ability to handpick the skills and strengths of the char on my own (EXAMPLE: you want to have a sneaky noble thief who is also looking great in full plate and has the muscles to wear one properly? sure! but then you won't have enough points to spend on making him also a spellcaster or shapeshifter)

 

You know why? Because this concept sucks in every goddamn way. I know there are some roleplayers who want to do everything at the same time? Why? I have absolutely no idea, but in a roleplaying-way that just doesn't make any sense. Sneaky noble thief - alright I can go with that. But why should he wear a full plate? And why should he be able to shapeshift and cast spells? Is he some kind of ridiculous overcompensation superheroes? I, for one, hate those concepts and whenever players bring that into a Pen & Paper round you just know the game's gonna be bad. People should focus on a simple idea and roleplay the **** out of it.

 

I think you missed that my suggetion was about a point-buy system, and I didn't say the same character should be able to do everything at the same time. That, and also that what I described was basically a robber baron/knight which is already an existing concept (and "profession") in history (in D&D terms you could call that a fighter/rogue, or maybe a fighter/aristocrat/rogue in certain worlds/settings), or pretty much every aristocratic rogue because the income of nobles allows all kind of training getting paid for. Not to mention some people are just naturally more adept at learning certain things, or just have photographic memory to begin with. (things like this were handled by games like Fallout or by RPGs like VampireTM with perks and merits)

 

Also, nobles have to keep up a certain image, maybe the cultural circumstances or heritage reqires from a noble who is more a thief in character and skills than a knight to be able to fight with sword and shield in plate mail. This doesn't mean he will sneak around and break into houses with a full plate, just that if necessary or when going to a battlefield he can also wear that.

 

Let's not even go into magic, as there could be any kind of street urchin or royalty which is already born with natural skill at sorcery and while getting trained in grammatic, laws, languages, and swordmanship as a noble he/she could at the same time as a sorcerer also use powers to be stronger, faster, summon a flaming sword, or throw fireballs. Being able to do multiple things is not against roleplaying at all, actually, the limitation to classes and what a single class can do ironically goes against roleplaying in these cases.

 

As for the Paladin debate: While I do like holy/celestial power using warriors, there is nothing what would hint that this game will have "paladin" be anything more than some title or profession, maybe royal knights will be called paladins. Thee is nothing that would suggest they would have to have some moral code they would have to live by either, or if they do that it would be any different from what average knights have to follow.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Jorian Drake

[kenup]

I'd like a marchiavellian paladin NPC that knows that sometimes to do the right thing, you've got to be a cunning asshat.

 

Imagine the fun when people go "but paladins can't do that!"

 

Aside: could the Punisher be considered a paladin?

I would like something like a cunning(not an asshat necessarily) paladin, perhaps finding holes in his code/law when required. Generally though, paladins are played straight as Lawful foolhardy divine right warriors.

 

The punisher, as far as I know(haven't cared much about him ever), is more of a "non-evil" anti-hero Knight Templar. Templars don't care about morality in general, just doing what is right by their order(or them); whatever that means.

Edited November 9, 2012 by kenup

[Monte Carlo]

You are the Ateam leader of a group of Special Forces guys who have successfully made contact with a very important tribe in the region. You are making progress but something is lacking. The locals want you to grow beards, get tattoos and wear brass rings signifying you as members of the tribe. The ceremony also involves heavy drinking and beating several animals to death in a ritual. Also to your horror they have paraded 4 girls, barely into their teens, before you whom they want you to "marry" to become fully fledged members. Your superiors have told you that you absolutely need this tribes support. Denying the above will ruin any trust you have built, and will likely be percieved as a grave offense to the tribe. What do?

 

You've deployed to Wales once or twice, haven't you?

[Jorian Drake]

I'd like a marchiavellian paladin NPC that knows that sometimes to do the right thing, you've got to be a cunning asshat.

 

Imagine the fun when people go "but paladins can't do that!"

 

Aside: could the Punisher be considered a paladin?

I would like something like a cunning(not an asshat necessarily) paladin, perhaps finding holes in his code/law when required. Generally though, paladins are played straight as Lawful foolhardy divine right warriors.

 

 

I think you basically described a lawyer-paladin (grand master?) or an inquisitor

[SophosTheWise]

I actually like to play now and then a paladin in RPG-s to be something like a Jousting Tournament master, or the char may be like King Arthur.

 

Honestly though, I would prefer to throw out the concept of "classes" alltogether, and get the ability to handpick the skills and strengths of the char on my own (EXAMPLE: you want to have a sneaky noble thief who is also looking great in full plate and has the muscles to wear one properly? sure! but then you won't have enough points to spend on making him also a spellcaster or shapeshifter)

 

You know why? Because this concept sucks in every goddamn way. I know there are some roleplayers who want to do everything at the same time? Why? I have absolutely no idea, but in a roleplaying-way that just doesn't make any sense. Sneaky noble thief - alright I can go with that. But why should he wear a full plate? And why should he be able to shapeshift and cast spells? Is he some kind of ridiculous overcompensation superheroes? I, for one, hate those concepts and whenever players bring that into a Pen & Paper round you just know the game's gonna be bad. People should focus on a simple idea and roleplay the **** out of it.

 

I think you missed that my suggetion was about a point-buy system, and I didn't say the same character should be able to do everything at the same time. That, and also that what I described was basically a robber baron/knight which is already an existing concept (and "profession") in history (in D&D terms you could call that a fighter/rogue, or maybe a fighter/aristocrat/rogue in certain worlds/settings), or pretty much every aristocratic rogue because the income of nobles allows all kind of training getting paid for. Not to mention some people are just naturally more adept at learning certain things, or just have photographic memory to begin with. (things like this were handled by games like Fallout or by RPGs like VampireTM with perks and merits)

 

Also, nobles have to keep up a certain image, maybe the cultural circumstances or heritage reqires from a noble who is more a thief in character and skills than a knight to be able to fight with sword and shield in plate mail. This doesn't mean he will sneak around and break into houses with a full plate, just that if necessary or when going to a battlefield he can also wear that.

 

Let's not even go into magic, as there could be any kind of street urchin or royalty which is already born with natural skill at sorcery and while getting trained in grammatic, laws, languages, and swordmanship as a noble he/she could at the same time as a sorcerer also use powers to be stronger, faster, summon a flaming sword, or throw fireballs. Being able to do multiple things is not against roleplaying at all, actually, the limitation to classes and what a single class can do ironically goes against roleplaying in these cases.

 

As for the Paladin debate: While I do like holy/celestial power using warriors, there is nothing what would hint that this game will have "paladin" be anything more than some title or profession, maybe royal knights will be called paladins. Thee is nothing that would suggest they would have to have some moral code they would have to live by either, or if they do that it would be any different from what average knights have to follow.

 

Yes, I have missed that - sorry.

 

Also: Yes, of course you can justify nearly all ideas within the D&D system. I, for one, am kind of a low-power fanatic, maybe because I'm a LARPer and I also associate those Hans-Dampf-in-allen-Gassen-Johnny-on-the-spot-concept as powergaming and I had really bad experiences with players like this. That's why always keep my character concepts simple. Imo characters that are too complicated are very difficult to roleplay in LARP as it is in P&P.But that's just me.

[kenup]

I'd like a marchiavellian paladin NPC that knows that sometimes to do the right thing, you've got to be a cunning asshat.

 

Imagine the fun when people go "but paladins can't do that!"

 

Aside: could the Punisher be considered a paladin?

I would like something like a cunning(not an asshat necessarily) paladin, perhaps finding holes in his code/law when required. Generally though, paladins are played straight as Lawful foolhardy divine right warriors.

 

 

I think you basically described a lawyer-paladin (grand master?) or an inquisitor

LoL. I was thinking more about him/her finding holes to make good when the law doesn't allow it, or accept chaotic/evil/<not the same as them> allies when, again, the greater good will benefit(or just have some brains and basic survival instincts). But at that point they probably aren't a paladin, they're just a person in law enforcement/city guard.

[Jorian Drake]

@SophosTheWise

 

Well, from my examples take VampireTM, it is basically a low-magic setting (event their "Mage" related works), you have no classes there, you can buy with points during char creation and later skills/abilities or even attributes, but that doesn't make your character a Superman, even if it specizes in some things, and while a Jack-of-all-trades is possible, it isn't really advisable.

 

I just say if I want to make a sociable, charming alchemist and court mage who can wield a rapier I should be able to do that, but not that it should be better than a duelist or a master mage. It could lead to it having certain skill combos other may not have, like a spell that makes the rapier enchanted and fight on its own, or alchemist's fire to be poured on the rapier to give it a fire damage, maybe something "Bard-like" to help his Persuation checks, and enough knowledge of etiquette to fit well in with noble events and identify what knight or lady is from which family, and what relationships/agenda/resources they got.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Jorian Drake

[Deathman]

I’d like to see all moral absolutism go the way it does in real life. Fail, and hard. I mean, who actually believes they’re a bad guy? Doesn’t just about everyone think they’re the hero? Most villains of history certainly thought they were following the righteous path. This makes the archetypical Paladin just another kind of antagonist. A man of such purity of vision that the world will never measure up to it, so he punishes the world.

 

As for roleplaying a Paladin, well, what does that even mean? Moral absolutism? Yeah, good luck dealing with anything more complicated than Sauron threatens babies. Blind devotion to a faith? Do you know how hard it would be to really represent that in a game? To really provide that option? It can’t be done, not without building a game around it. Just being a really good guy? Well that shouldn’t be all that hard. Avoid kicking puppies and your set. What actually is a Paladin? Besides a guy in shiny armour.

[Jorian Drake]

I’d like to see all moral absolutism go the way it does in real life. Fail, and hard. I mean, who actually believes they’re a bad guy? Doesn’t just about everyone think they’re the hero? Most villains of history certainly thought they were following the righteous path. This makes the archetypical Paladin just another kind of antagonist. A man of such purity of vision that the world will never measure up to it, so he punishes the world.

 

As for roleplaying a Paladin, well, what does that even mean? Moral absolutism? Yeah, good luck dealing with anything more complicated than Sauron threatens babies. Blind devotion to a faith? Do you know how hard it would be to really represent that in a game? To really provide that option? It can’t be done, not without building a game around it. Just being a really good guy? Well that shouldn’t be all that hard. Avoid kicking puppies and your set. What actually is a Paladin? Besides a guy in shiny armour.

 

this reminds me: no alignment system please!

 

No lawful/good/chaotic/good please, and definetly no spells like "Detect Evil", that made most D&D games terrible, especially if you had a Paladin which acted as a walking alignment detector

 

I am fine with "Detect Otherworldly" though, which could detect ghosts, demons, angels, or their presence (but not define what exactly it is among these)

also with "Detect Charm" which would show if someone got influenced through magic and similar

Edited November 9, 2012 by Jorian Drake

[Rostere]

I think the point of the OP is that it should be possible to roleplay a character who is very strict about associating with lawless or immoral elements of society. I don't think anyone would like the game to forcibly team up the PC with characters he/she would have fought to the death. Regarding paladins in PE we already know that there will be no alignment meter, so we will definitely see paladins of different types, some more moral than others. I don't want non- PC paladins in PE to all be exactly the same and I don't think any of you guys do either. I just hope that it will be possible to roleplay as either a strict inquisitor- type of paladin or a more merciful, pragmatic, "chivalric" type (this does of course extend to every character class).

[Jorian Drake]

In my opinion a classic religion-related D&D styled Paladin can be somewhere in between three agendas

(weird example maybe, but like how a nation is in between the Axis-Allies-Soviets triangle in Paradox Hearts of Iron games)

 

Law

Good (would call it "Justice" in this case)

Religion

 

basically a paladin is in classic RPG the personification of all that is just and good in a religion, however, the person itself may be more about law enforcement and upholding/keeping itself to laws, or about being charitable and good, or about following/agreeing with the rules and teachings of its own religions.

 

Paladins often follow good gods, but not always, and you could as example be a paladin of a god that is all about destroying all undead, so if a paladin who meets a good undead NPC the outcome of that meeting would depend on how good that paladin is, how strongly he feels about the doctrines of his diety, and if the laws of the land (or whatever faction he considers himself part of) tolerate undead.

 

Anyway, as mentioned earlier I would prefer no true alignment system, and without that "paladin" could be just slightly more than a title or position, a paladin could be a greedy tax collector (like the Sheriff in Robin Hood misuses its rank/title) just as much a peasant could have the sould and idealism of a true paladin you would expect in a typical RPG (who would be a kind and just person)

[TrashMan]

Strict adherence to philosophies, religion, codes or creeds have a tendency to breed intolerance and demonisation of anyone "not us".

 

Being fanatical about anything can breed fanaticism.

Strictly adhereing to a code can lead to that too.

any sice every one of has has some personal philospohy, adhering to it can be abused.

 

 

And Moralities/ethics arent absolute.

 

I say they are.

 

And your examples are silly. Exceptions prove the rule and moralities and ethics are absolute within a given context.

 

Also, I've yet to see a superior in the miltiary having the authority to order someone to marry. There is a destinction between following sensible orders and being a utter moron.

Edited November 9, 2012 by TrashMan

[Jorian Drake]

And Moralities/ethics arent absolute.

 

I say they are.

 

That makes your opinion absolute, not those.

[TrashMan]

A good example of a non-aligment based paladin-like class are Templars from DA. I'd like class liek that. Feels very paladinish without being paladins.

[Jorian Drake]

A good example of a non-aligment based paladin-like class are Templars from DA. I'd like class liek that. Feels very paladinish without being paladins.

Well, that is because they are Templars, a military order of the Church which is more military-like than the typical Paladin orders which have greater autonomy

(not to mention paladins are more directly under the command of their diety and not the clergy, which makes them about equal with priests/clerics in hierarchy, unlike Templars)

Edited November 9, 2012 by Jorian Drake

[kenup]

Templars don't equal paladins. And the ones in DA aren't paladins. Paladins are "lawful good". Templars follow the laws of their own or an order's code, regardless of moral alignment(though they might think they do good). A templar will be an ass to anyone not following that code/law regardless of alignment.

Edited November 9, 2012 by kenup

[Jorian Drake]

Templars don't equal paladins. And the ones in DA aren't.

Honestly, "Templars" in DA are not even templars, they are "Anti-spellcasting Knights" at best, but maybe replacing "knights" with "Warriors" would be a better fit.

[Felithvian]

I think the point of the OP is that it should be possible to roleplay a character who is very strict about associating with lawless or immoral elements of society. I don't think anyone would like the game to forcibly team up the PC with characters he/she would have fought to the death. Regarding paladins in PE we already know that there will be no alignment meter, so we will definitely see paladins of different types, some more moral than others. I don't want non- PC paladins in PE to all be exactly the same and I don't think any of you guys do either. I just hope that it will be possible to roleplay as either a strict inquisitor- type of paladin or a more merciful, pragmatic, "chivalric" type (this does of course extend to every character class).

 

Pretty much. But instead of a strict Inquisitor who's limited by laws created by men, I prefer to be more like a "Christ-Like" figure who enters the Temple to clean and purify it from moneychangers and animal-sellers.

 

A paladin's anger is targeted to sinful behavior and true injustice.

[jezz555]

And frankly, creating a paladin/templar character/order only to villify them is even more cliche and boring. Bashing religion seems popular and sicne paladins/templars are usualyl religious, some people like to bash them.

It sickens me.

Just look what happens when people like that get creative control.

 

 

The paladin archetype as it stands expects perfection from a character, you have to be good in all cases, and that's impossible imo, perfection is not something attainable. It's not "bashing religion" to suggest that the religious are capable of sin, the bible suggests exactly the same thing. I would once again disagree this idea you've been attempting to push that morality is absolute, but judging by the fact that you haven't brought up any reasonable examples to the contrary and I have, I doubt I would gain any traction in that pursuit.

[Farbautisonn]

 

You've deployed to Wales once or twice, haven't you?

Im sorry. I prefer to observe "The Silence of the Lambs" in lieu of "the fifth".